science
Science
Hi,
I see this trend in philosophy that can be named "the rehabilitation of metaphysics". It is related with the crisis in physics wich Lenin confronted. One basic thing that i struggle to grasp is that reality not only is, but is changing. Some philosophers are so "sophisticated", and they write a lot about scientific realism and they have turned a statement as "there is an objective, mind independent reality" into a metaphysical one. They reject a commitment with the ultimate nature of reality as it is a materialistic one. They elude the framework that the human being it is not just a sentient, thinking being, but a working being. They dismissed the correctness of the struggle for production.
In the section The Rupture…
In reply to Science by Anonymous
In the section The Rupture with Outmoded Thinking and Beliefs, which is in first part of MAKING REVOLUTION AND EMANCIPATING HUMANITY, the first paragraph identifies this kind of trend.
"People are constantly regenerating various forms of philosophical idealism and metaphysics, which posit the existence of—and give a pivotal place and determining role to—beings, or “forces” and “causes,” that are said to be beyond the realm of the material universe—things which, in reality, do not exist." Previous to this quote says: "which gets expressed in innumerable and seemingly very creative, and actually sometimes very creative, ways and variations."
The New Synthesis
Hi, I have a question
Is it really necessary to rupture with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism when there has not yet been a concrete application of it yet?
New Synthesis
In reply to The New Synthesis by Anonymous
What do you mean by this? There was application of MLM, under Mao in China.
MLM
In reply to New Synthesis by D
Generally, when people say this, they mean to say that MLM was not really synthesized in the time of Mao (they contend that in this period, it would/should be called Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung thought, not MLM), and that it was only theoretically and practically tested through the PCP and Gonzalo-thought in particular. I haven’t really read Gonzalo much so I can’t say if he fundamentally broke with Maoism. But I do know that Gonzalo and the movement he led carried with them a lot of baggage from the first wave, and Avakian has criticized their errors and shortcomings. But more fundamentally, but I don’t think OP gets is quite the process by which the new synthesis came about: through a thorough examination and summation of the whole first wave of communist revolutions and socialist societies, and grappling with other aspects of reality, not just through analyzing and rupturing with elements of Maoism (Although it does do that).
Question
How do we break down complex concepts to people who are very new at theory while also encouraging people to go deeper. I think this will be important for this forum. Sometimes you can ask a question and become even more confused because you get met with a lot of jargon & high level
concepts, and go read this whole book. Important to read books and dig deeper but this can’t be our only approach when people ask questions
Science
BA makes the point that we need to be scientific. Materialism is really about seeing reality as it really is and not about making shit up. And being scientifically oriented towards changing the world on that basis.
There are constant battles over what is reality. For example last year Trump and other conservatives and fascists were saying that the Carona Virus is " a little flu". And there were all kinds of arguments for "herd immunity " that would let the virus spread.
But this is NOT a little flu. And a close look at the number of dead and sick shows this.
There are countless examples of how people battle for the truth. It was a hard battle to get doctors to wash their hands in 1800s. Allot of people died because doctors didn't realize this.
There 's a certain body of knowledge concentrated in BAs work. Is it true? I definitely think it is.
Add new comment